Jo Maugham

I think the TRAs have managed to convince themselves that a 13-year-old child saying that they never want children and have no interest in sex proves that they are asexual. Whereas to most reasonable people this is just a 13-year-old child indicating that they are still a child.

Yes how the fuck does he think that will help his case? The child clearly demonstrates that they haven't a clue which is the very point. Clueless numpties.

There's such a disconnect isn't there? What that child is saying to me is that they don't have a clue what they're signing up to.

How did he think this was going to help the defence? This child has simply demonstrated that they are incapable of giving informed consent to medical treatment which will leave them infertile and with impaired sexual function.

Any further testimony from this child would simply strengthen the claimants' case.

He seemed particularly cross that child S in my post above ^^ was not allowed to give evidence in person in addition to the written evidence that I quoted.

Him claiming the judges had this loads of evidence..and ignored it (because bigot?) is just ridiculous.

Also where is this endless evidence they claim exists? Surely the Tavi could have got hold of that easily enough. That they didn't, and nor did mermaids or stonewall, speaks for itself really.

"S is a 13 year old trans boy who is on the waiting list at GIDS. He was told that he would have to wait for approximately 24 months to be seen and with his parents decided to see a private provider, GenderGP, where he has been prescribed PBs. We note at this point that the GP in question was removed from the professional register and now operates from outside the United Kingdom. S in his witness statement said:
“13. … I haven’t really thought about parenthood – I have been asked about it by the gender identity specialist I have mentioned but I just have no idea what me in the future is going to think. I haven’t had a romantic
relationship and it’s just not a thing that is really on my radar at the moment.”"

This paragraph from the judgement is interesting, the parents of this 13 yo are paying GenderGP for blockers. It must be infuriating to then be told by the judges that you may be actually harming your child when you've convinced yourself that you're helping them.

Some lizards can 'drop' body parts if they chose to, and grow them back. Clearly this means we can chop off our arms and legs if we fancy some new ones?
Exactly.
And birds fly and lay eggs but I expect us mammals will keep growing babies in our uteruses for the foreseeable and I’m not jumping off any high roofs thanks.

Arguments like that are nonsense. How do people say it with a straight face?

So did they ignore the evidence or were too stupid to understand it?

He would probably argue that you don't have to be stupid to misunderstand or misinterpret something. All humans are capable of making a mistake. Though, tbf, I also think that this would be the best possible reading of what he's said, and it is certainly sailing incredibly close to the wind.

If the evidence exists, why is it so difficult to make it public?

I think the screenshot from chaz indicates that Maugham believes the available evidence was presented to the court. I assume all the evidence (scientific rather than personal testimony) from the judicial review is available as it would be public record.

agree Chazs, what exactly is he trying to imply there?

If the evidence exists, why is it so difficult to make it public?

JM is skating on some pretty thin ice around the judges. So did they ignore the evidence or were too stupid to understand it?

One of the legal directors at Good Law Project is also part of Free Period project - an organisation that campaigns for girls to have free sanitary products at school without once mentioning the word girls.

Don't care about women fleeing domestic violence, sometimes with young children, having to try and recover in a refuge with a male walking around the place scaring women and posing with their dick out, do they?

Don't care about the girls in schools forced to share toilets with the boys, do they?

And here's the thing - EVEN IF our knowledge of biology was being updated and it was legitimately a spectrum, I DON'T CARE. My experience of moving about in the world is that there are people with pensises who tend to be stronger than people with vaginas and the former group often do the latter huge harm.

Even if you sat me down and explained the science of why some people with penises were genuinely a different sex to what I first assumed based on appearance, it's still entirely irrelevant to me. I want spaces away from people with penises. I should matter, too, as someone who has experienced trauma. The world is a significantly safer place if we use the old-fashioned concept of binary sex. That's still my reality.

So thank you to anyone who wants to change that, Margaret Atwood included, but hell no.

I wonder how his wife is able to tell who women and girls are? Seeing as she's referenced them in her tweet about abortion.

Don't care about our right to privacy away from males, do they?

Don't care about our right to campaign on issues that are unique to us without having to include males, do they?

Don't care about women fleeing domestic violence, sometimes with young children, having to try and recover in a refuge with a male walking around the place scaring women and posing with their dick out, do they?

Don't care about the girls in schools forced to share toilets with the boys, do they?

Don't care about our right to accurately describe our sex class, do they?

Don't care about the bereaved mothers being insulted by 'inclusive' language, do they?

Don't care about the women who can't speak English very well not being able to understand 'people with a cervix', do they?

Don't care about women being robbed of medals in their sports, or being at increased risk of injury from being forced to play against a male, do they?

Don't care about women being raped by males in prison, do they?

Don't give a shit about the 2-3 women a week murdered, do they?

Didn't give a shit about the children exposed to porn whilst taking part in art competition with their favourite author, did they?

So many women who have pointed out any of the above have been threatened to be raped, murdered, pissed on, have their heads stamped on, to be set of fire, had their children's lives threatened etc.

They're full of shit. They can keep 'women and girls rights' out of their hypocritical fucking mouths. They're the last people we want fighting our corner, thanks.

Sees to me the only time the rights of women matter, is if they can be used as a gotchya. Same as how TRAs are deeply concerned that GNC women might be mistaken for men in female only spaces

Its also a bit interesting that suddenly, MRA types are concerned about womens/girls access to abortion. Makes me think back to that meeting 'we are still here' or something, where it was admitted that in order to get women onside, TRAs should pretend to care about period poverty and sch.

See also abortion rights in Ireland

This dragging in of abortion and contraception is no accident. It comes over like “You naughty mouthy women just won’t shut up, will you? Well, you can’t have your abortion and contraception any more then. There! That’ll learn you! Do what you’re told like a good girl”.

Comes in useful for misrepresenting feminists as 'the christian right' or whatever also. Afterall, what feminist would campaign to end abortion rights for under 16s?!

Its also a bit interesting that suddenly, MRA types are concerned about womens/girls access to abortion. Makes me think back to that meeting 'we are still here' or something, where it was admitted that in order to get women onside, TRAs should pretend to care about period poverty and sch.

Reading that thread, I have no idea why I continue to be shocked on this topic, but I do wonder what the point is in stuff like this. In reply to a biologist

'If you really are a biologist, then you should no there are not 2 sexes but a lot more in between. And that it depends on which characteristics you chose to consider.'

I cannot make the slightest bit of sense over saying stuff like this. Do you expect the biologist to go 'oh my bad, you are right' and then join the religion or something!?

[quote nauticant]Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949[/quote]
Because slug sex is absolutely relevant when discussing humans?

Some lizards can 'drop' body parts if they chose to, and grow them back. Clearly this means we can chop off our arms and legs if we fancy some new ones?

Agree, nauticant.

You'd have to be pretty ignorant about the issues or indoctrinated to think that now is the time to jump on the "puberty blockers must be given to children" bandwagon.

Anyone who virtual signals on social media about donating to any supposedly ‘good cause’ immediately gets an eye raise from me. I’ll let it go a couple of times but eventually I’ll hit unfollow. I have no issue with charitable donations, but by doing it quietly you are doing it in good faith. If you’re shouting about it I’m questioning your motives.